Picking an all rounder who's equally good in both batting and bowling for an ATG team will weaken bowling or batting depending on what you are pickinmg him for. Sobers wasn't picked for his all round ability but for his batting alone. I will want the best six batsmen and best 4 bowlers and a good keeper in the team.

This is pretty much it. You should be able to back your top 6 as specialist batsmen to get you a sufficient score, and you should be able to back your 4 specialist bowlers to get you 20 wickets in a match. The batting of the bowling all-rounder and the bowling of the batting all-rounders are extras that should fall way below specialist skills in the pecking order.

@CowsCorner - 202 followers and counting!

Disclaimer: I am a biased South African. Anything I say is likely to have something in it that ultimately favours the Proteas.

Cbf doing research on it but I can only imagine. I'm sure someone can confirm.

You're missing the point completely. A quality 6th batsman is more important than a quality 5th bowler. The fifth bowler is only really needed as a bowler that gives a break to the main bowlers, but at the same time is more than just a part-timer that can get caned around. The 6th batsman must be relied on to score big runs just as any other top 6 batsman. It's basic team composition.

How so?

Miller is 10 runs off on average for being an ATG for a #5. Miller more than makes up for that difference in being superior to Kallis/Sobers as a bowler - not only saving more runs than they would go for, but getting more wickets and saving overs by doing so at a faster rate.

Again, you're missing my point. The debate, as far as I can tell, is that he shouldn't be in the batting order at all. His batting isn't good enough to warrant being selected in the top 6 at all, regardless of how good his bowling is. Having 6 ATG batsmen is more important than having 5 ATG bowlers.

Again, my reply in the above becomes relevant.

But that's not the case with bowling all-rounders. They have to bat. So, it's preferential to have the best batting bowler. As I said, that is IF you want an all-rounder. Some sides will just go 6 specialists bats - a Gilchrist - and 4 front line bowlers. That's reasonable. I am saying, however, if you want to utilise an all-rounder, you'd be stupid to give Kallis or Sobers any overs. You are purposely hindering yourself because you are choosing to bowl an inferior bowler (not everyone has to bowl), but you do not have a choice on who bats because everybody has to. Using them to bowl a few overs - or as a throw-the-kitchen-sink move is not using them as all-rounders, that would be using them as part-timers.

Miller is 10 runs off on average for being an ATG for a #5. Miller more than makes up for that difference in being superior to Kallis/Sobers as a bowler - not only saving more runs than they would go for, but getting more wickets and saving overs by doing so at a faster rate.

Again, my reply in the above becomes relevant.

But that's not the case with bowling all-rounders. They have to bat. So, it's preferential to have the best batting bowler. As I said, that is IF you want an all-rounder. Some sides will just go 6 specialists bats - a Gilchrist - and 4 front line bowlers. That's reasonable. I am saying, however, if you want to utilise an all-rounder, you'd be stupid to give Kallis or Sobers any overs. You are purposely hindering yourself because you are choosing to bowl an inferior bowler (not everyone has to bowl), but you do not have a choice on who bats because everybody has to. Using them to bowl a few overs - or as a throw-the-kitchen-sink move is not using them as all-rounders, that would be using them as part-timers.

And again this highlights our disagreement with regards to the role of the fifth bowler. Five genuine bowlers doesn't give one sufficient advantage over four, if you back your best four bowlers. You get much more benefit out of putting a superior batsman in. You see, in my mind a bowling line-up of Marshall, McGrath and A.N.Other ATG bowler along with Warne doesn't need a specialist, 22-averaging bowler as much as a top 5 with the names Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, SRT and Viv needs a Sobers who averages 57 with the bat or whatever. It's a tried-and-tested formula, and the general conclusion as can be seen by the standard construction of a Test line up is the genuine 6th batsman gives more benefit than the genuine fifth bowler.

Imran is the other option, but I think Miller was a better batsman than Imran.

My argument to your second team would be that if you felt the need to have two spinners in your team, you would be playing on a spinning track. In this case, you wouldn't want to be carrying a superfluous pacer if you're particularly selecting your team to suit the spinning conditions.

And again this highlights our disagreement with regards to the role of the fifth bowler. Five genuine bowlers doesn't give one sufficient advantage over four, if you back your best four bowlers. You get much more benefit out of putting a superior batsman in. You see, in my mind a bowling line-up of Marshall, McGrath and A.N.Other ATG bowler along with Warne doesn't need a specialist, 22-averaging bowler as much as a top 5 with the names Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, SRT and Viv needs a Sobers who averages 57 with the bat or whatever. It's a tried-and-tested formula, and the general conclusion as can be seen by the standard construction of a Test line up is the genuine 6th batsman gives more benefit than the genuine fifth bowler.

Yes, but why would you purposely risk that anyway? What you're saying, as far as it makes sense to me, is that you're basically using Sobers/Kallis as a part-timer not a genuine all-rounder.

You might assume you will not need it 9/10...but if this is an Earth XI vs a Mars XI and the fate of the World is on the line (silly, but this is what I mean for when I am picking the best side) why would you unnecessarily risk it? What if one of your specialist bowlers breaks down? You're ****ed. Not just for being a capable man down, but because now the guy who has to pick up the slack is nowhere near the requisite level.

I'd much rather need Miller the batsman to make up the difference than Sobers the bowler. Or furthermore; I'd rather that choice be out of my hands than the fault being of my own negligible selection.

Especially considering the dynamics of cricket. A batsman getting injured still has 10 other guys (more likely 5-6) to make the difference. If a bowler goes down you're ****ed in this scenario as the load now rests on 3 bowlers.

Yes, but why would you purposely risk that anyway? What you're saying, as far as it makes sense to me, is that you're basically using Sobers/Kallis as a part-timer not a genuine all-rounder.

You might assume you will not need it 9/10...but if this is an Earth XI vs a Mars XI and the fate of the World is on the line (silly, but this is what I mean for when I am picking the best side) why would you unnecessarily risk it? What if one of your specialist bowlers breaks down? You're ****ed. Not just for being a capable man down, but because now the guy who has to pick up the slack is nowhere near the requisite level.

I'd much rather need Miller the batsman to make up the difference than Sobers the bowler. Or furthermore; I'd rather that choice be out of my hands than the fault being of my own negligible selection.

Especially considering the dynamics of cricket. A batsman getting injured still has 10 other guys (more likely 5-6) to make the difference. If a bowler goes down you're ****ed in this scenario as the load now rests on 3 bowlers.

So you're selecting to cover all of your bases in case of an injury, as opposed to what the best team make-up is?

So you're selecting to cover all of your bases in case of an injury, as opposed to what the best team make-up is?

Why is that any different? It's one and the same. You pick the best team, to get over the toughest adversary (opposition and situation) in my opinion.

For you the difference was slight between the difference in picking Sobers or Miller overall but sided with the batsman. But when you take into the consideration of how a match can actually play out you can see that the slight difference can make a huge impact. Why take such a real risk because of a perceived (and debatable) advantage?

In the recent past I've selected both Imran and Miller in my team. For the reasons above, I've started to put both Warne and Murali in it too. I used to think that 2 is overkill but in reality what if you pick one spinner and, like the above scenario, he gets injured? By picking 2 all-rounders and 2 spinners I cover almost all the bases. 3 front-line pacers (more than enough) 2 spinners (way more than enough).

I have a genuine spearhead in Lillee who, if need be, can bowl monster long spells. I have Imran and Miller who are ATG pacers and both who provide even more batting depth (as a whole, more valuable than picking 2 of Hadlee/Marshall/McGrath IMO). And I have 2 of the greatest spinners whose performances are so good they rival ATG pacers. I have a side where if nothing goes wrong (no one gets injured) can rival any other team and I also have the kind of side that can adjust to most any problem that may arise (like an injury or horrifically out of form player). That Miller batting in the top 5 may hinder the middle-order somewhat is offset by the long tail - although, compositionally it makes the most sense that he bats #5.

What I personally belive is that optimally one should select both a batting and bowling all rounder in any team, once they do not compromise in the top six or the bowling attack. It is always a good idea to have a decent #8 batsman to shepherd the tail for a couple extra runs or help save the team on the final day of a test. Similarily no matter how good your bowling attack, there is always the need for a handy fifth bowler either to provide rest before the next new ball, be a partnership breaker or just to extend the bowling rotation. Again though, not at the expense of the batting or bowling lineups.

Yes, but why would you purposely risk that anyway? What you're saying, as far as it makes sense to me, is that you're basically using Sobers/Kallis as a part-timer not a genuine all-rounder.

You might assume you will not need it 9/10...but if this is an Earth XI vs a Mars XI and the fate of the World is on the line (silly, but this is what I mean for when I am picking the best side) why would you unnecessarily risk it? What if one of your specialist bowlers breaks down? You're ****ed. Not just for being a capable man down, but because now the guy who has to pick up the slack is nowhere near the requisite level.

I'd much rather need Miller the batsman to make up the difference than Sobers the bowler. Or furthermore; I'd rather that choice be out of my hands than the fault being of my own negligible selection.

Especially considering the dynamics of cricket. A batsman getting injured still has 10 other guys (more likely 5-6) to make the difference. If a bowler goes down you're ****ed in this scenario as the load now rests on 3 bowlers.

Is an All Time XI supposed to be an honour/ reward for the best test players (careers) or as Ikki says the team we would play againts Mars for the sake of the Earth. If it's the latter then I would go with.

All about balance, Hutton to be the anchor, batting depth with match winners in the middle order, best batting all rounder, attacking and metronomic bolwers, pace and accuratcy and an amazing cordon and outfield. Besides myself and Jager not many others place an emphasis on the cordon, but bowlers like Marshall, Lillee and Mcgrath depended heavily on their cordons for wickets, as well as Warne and it must be a factor for me when choosing such sides.

Imran is the other option, but I think Miller was a better batsman than Imran.

Just to carry on the Earth V Mars theme......

It's 1-1 heading into the 5th Test and Earth has to win the final Test against Mars otherwise Earth the planet gets obliterated by a massive Ray Gun. The Mars groundsman has prepared a flat track to favour his team (just like the Indian ones generally do at Mumbai or where-ever).

Therefore: Earth is going to need the X-factor of Miller in the team because his inclusion gives the team greater bowling variety and depth. A batting centric team won't do in a 'must-win situation'. The second option it is to save us all from doom.

It's 1-1 heading into the 5th Test and Earth has to win the final Test against Mars otherwise Earth the planet gets obliterated by a massive Ray Gun. The Mars groundsman has prepared a flat track to favour his team (just like the Indian ones generally do at Mumbai or where-ever).

In that case you need Jardine as skipper and a pace attack of Larwood, Thommo, Roy Gilchrist and Sylvers